designing for deliberationdavies/cs547.pdf · email use universal in some, technologyoriented...
TRANSCRIPT
Designing for Deliberation
Todd DaviesSymbolic Systems Program
Stanford University
People, Computers, and Design SeminarJanuary 20, 2006
“Deliberation” "thoughtful, careful, or lengthy consideration" by
individuals
"formal discussion and debate" in groups
Models of online deliberation Citizen dialogue – formation of public opinion Public consultation – citizen input as part of an official
process online Collective decision making – group democracy,
egalitarian power Community organizing – loose group with shared
interests, guided by organizers Managed, cooperative work – deliberation as an aspect
of business/formal organizations Group learning – educational settings
“Online deliberation”
A common theme:The challenge of using electronic media in a way
that deepens thinking and improves mutual understanding.
See also: http://www.onlinedeliberation.net
PIECE
Partnership for Internet Equityand Community Engagement
between… the East Palo Alto Community Networkand the Symbolic Systems Program at Stanford
Ideals of the PIECE approach
Communitybased
Participantobservation
Problemdriven
A ProblemDriven Design Process
Problems Identified Other Observations and Assumptions Available Approaches Principles Consequences Initial design and feedback Redesign
QuickTime and aH.263 decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Participant observations in East Palo Alto (20022003)Problems posed by reliance on f2f meetings for community decision
making: Low attendance and representation Insufficient meeting duration and frequency Not enough communication between meetings Not enough information available during meetings Not enough communication between groups Insufficient (access to) group records Streamlined decision procedures Lack of transparency for those unable to attend Present in all communities, but of amplified importance in underserved
communities
Other Observations and Assumptions Email use universal in some, technologyoriented groups (e.g.
TechCollab) Other tools being used: Yahoo! Groups, Zoomerang Many residents in nontech oriented groups did not use email Community Network making Internet access nearly universal,
with training opportunities Language and literacy barriers can be overcome through
representation Decision making thought to require facetoface meetings
Available Approaches Making more effective use of existing asynchronous tools
for threaded text conversation (email, message boards, blogs, wikis)
Synchronous tools (e.g. voice chat software used by Fishkin/Luskin), combined with email
Better publicity for and public records of f2f meetings New asynchronous tool for deliberation tailored to target
groups
Deme: a platform for online deliberation (2003 )
Principles: Supportiveness. The platform should support
the group overall, so that there is either an improvement or no decline in the ability of the group to meet the needs of its members or stakeholders.
Deme: a platform for online deliberation (2003 )
Principles: Supportiveness Comprehensiveness. The platform should allow
the group to accomplish, in an online environment, all of the usual deliberative tasks associated with facetoface meetings.
Deme: a platform for online deliberation (2003 )
Principles: Supportiveness Comprehensiveness Participation. The platform should maximize the
number of desired participants in the group's deliberations, and minimize barriers to their participation.
Deme: a platform for online deliberation (2003 )
Principles: Supportiveness Comprehensiveness Participation Quality. The platform should facilitate a subjective
quality of interaction and decision making that meets or exceeds what the group achieves in facetoface meetings
Principle 1: Supporting the Group
Consequences: Sovereign control Free and open source Integrate with existing practices (e.g. decision
procedures, email list, other tools) Responsiveness of designers
Principle 2: Comprehensive Deliberation
Consequences: Discussion focused on agenda items Shared display (WYSIWIS) Flexible polls and decisions Intext comments in documents Document revision Project management tool integrated witih discussion Customizable group website/archive Flexible integration with email Multiple meeting areas per group space Ability to share meeting areas across groups
Principle 3: Maximizing Desired Participants
Consequences: Asynchronous (different times/places) Compatible and interoperable Familiar features Simple, intuitive design Accessibility to those with special needs Fast, robust, secure
Principle 4: High Quality Deliberation
Consequences: Builtin feedback Proven structures for discussion Tutorials/models of practice Features that encourage directed discussion
rather than paraphrasing
Present version of Deme (v0.5)
Live Demo….
(see at groupspace.org)
Groups that could benefit… Volunteer advisory boards Neighborhood associations Consortia of nonprofits Grassroots activist groups Labor union chapters and caucuses Clubs and religious congregations Universitybased groups Adhoc citizen groups (e.g. for community planning)
PIECE Contributors (2002 )Kim Karen ChenAlex Angiolillo CochranTodd DaviesMagda Escobar Jonathan J. Effrat Roma JhaveriChristina MillsBenjamin NewmanBrendan O'ConnorAndrew ParkerGautam RaghavanRandy SaffoldRenata Danielle SanchezBenjamin SywulkaAaron Tam Brandi ThompsonTom WasowRolando Zeledon
For more info…On this project… www.groupspace.org (Deme host) see FAQ http://piece.stanford.edu (PIECE project)HCI Background: Stefik et al., “Beyond the Chalkboard” (1987) WYSIWIS Holland & Stornetta, “Beyond Being There” (1992) f2f not necessarily
gold standard Grudin, “Groupware and Social Dynamics: Eight Challenges for
Developers” (1994) Mashayekhi et al., “AISA” (1995) visual indicators of focus Kruger & Cross, “Modeling Cognitive Strategies in Creative Design”
(2001) problemdriven vs solutiondriven design